Besides which, all those companies that you mention have their fabrication plants in Taiwan, Japan or China.....
So the chip designers are still in the US, but looking at the staff roll-call on chip design at intel, I see a lot of Chinese and Indian names. If their countries raise the standard of living to comfortable Western standards, they might go back to Asia.
Okay, so my government, as well as everyone else in the world will always be at least a month behind the US government's spooks,
I don't know who your Government is, but it unlikely that they use Microsoft operating systems for anything important. If they do, well then they are going to get everything they deserve anyway.
I think that Microsoft just gave every other government in the world good reason to switch IMMEDIATELY to Linux!
Every other Government of the world already has a good reason to switch to Linux. But the wheels of government grind very slowly, and corporate money is often the grease for those wheels too.
. It's common knowlege that the CIA spies on foreign businesses in order to give USA based businesses a competitive edge.
First of all, it's NOT common knowledge, even though it is altogether true. However, in the best known example, it was listening devices (otherwise known as bugs), not shoddy operating systems that provided the information required.
I mean honestly, how much hardware gets built in the US anymore?
Not much, but an amazing amount is still designed there. Especially CPUs. So it may be a little early for predicting the demise of the US electronics industry.
Imagine if Asian hardware manufacturers pay MS the same attention that they used to pay Linux?
That is not really a short term possibility. Several things would need to happen before that situation is even likely. First, there would need to be a consumer grade Linux bundled with a consumer grade PC, that was well marketed to a large non-US market (EG. Korea, Japan, China) Second, this consumer grade Linux would need some kind of driver to accelerate it's uptake to the millions. Third, an ISV industry would need to develop around this Linux to push demand for greater hardware. Sorry, having dinner... so I won't elaborate.
With no sales commission, there's no incentive to be incredibly successful,
There's no incentive to be incredibly dishonest either, but that doesn't seem to worry Americans so much.
or to put extreme effort in. .... to lying, or fudging or overpromising.
I've known companies with no sales commission, and the sales team usually just coast.
The protestant work ethic has a lot to answer for. These 'coasting' salesmen, do they make sales? Are their companies profitable? Are they perhaps secure that their company makes great products, and it really their job to manage the relationship between their company and their customers?
When you cut the direct link between performance and rewards, you destroy the motivation, and you lose the important corporate culture of rewarding success and punishing failure.
Always a popular philosophy, no matter how many times it been proven how destructive and counter-productive reward/punishment cultures are. The only cultural behaviour that has ever achieved ANYTHING in human history is CO-OPERATION. Why is that so hard for people to get?
A four fold increase. Not likely. You might get the average car up to 40mpg but 50 or 60 would be next to impossible.
I have posted on this subject before, so I won't include the details. I'm not sure if you are schilling for the automobile industry here, but not only is 60mpg possible for a standard four door sedan, it has already been done... twice. There is absolutely no technological impediment to making the average car get 60 in the city and 100 on the freeway. The only impediment is capital investment (new) and existing capital amortization.
Power plants are also pretty efficient. There is no real way make them four times as efficient.
Wrong again. There is and they have (just not for very many).
old appliances and even old homes that would cost a HUGE amount to upgrade in both money and in energy
Yes, but that is not efficiency, it's capital investment.
5. When an light bulb burns out we replace it with a compact florescent.
In the US only there are more than 50 large powerplants to be saved in changing incandescants to compacts alone. And that's just ONE change.
Probably the best source of biodeisel (in terms of cost and availability) is used cooking oil. God only knows how many millions of gallons of the stuff that MacDonalds throws away each year, not to mention KFC, Hungry Jacks etc etc.
Cooking oil is good because there are several ways you can use it as deisel. One is an onboard 'cracker' which basically heats the pure vegetable oil before sending it to the engine. The second is increasing the cetane level by adding ethanol or methanol. Only really works in very high compressing engines. The third is the conventional method of cracking the oil with (IIRC) caustic soda and some distillation process, details of which escape me at the moment, but are freely available on the web.
If you start growing just for biodiesel then I think you will see the cost go up.
I'm not sure if we would even consider that starting out. We already create oil for cooking burgers/chicken and so forth, so in the short term, we would just use the existing supply.
However, in the long term, we really need to consider that there is more energy to be gained in power efficiency than there is in the ground, and the great thing about efficiency is that it only has a capital cost, not an ongoing cost.
OPEC knows this all too well, which is why they will not let the price of Oil go too high. The last time OPEC did that saw the greatest increase in energy intensity in the United States in over 100 years, a level from which it has slowly declined to the present day. And as long as you have Oilmen in the Whitehouse, that won't change.
So if it came right down to the wire, the current production of vegetable oil, plus a fourfold increase in energy efficiency would probably meet 70-80% of the current energy requirements. The rest would need to be supplied from something else.
Okay how is it more efficient? It may be better for the enviroment or even better for nation security but how is it more efficent than petrodiesel?
In oil wells that are pressure negative (ie, you need to pump something in for the oil to come out), like in the US, it costs US$15 a barrel to get the stuff out of the ground.
Then there is the cost of refining the stuff into petroleum, about another 50c to $1 per barrel.
Distribution costs are probably the same for both fules.
SO.... if you can produce biodeisel for less than $15-$16 per barrel, then it is cheaper than petrodeisel. Otherwise, it is not.
I agree. I have yet to see a viable technology that will allow us to replicate the current level of service we get from jet airliners for air travel.
Right, high level of service, but at enourmous cost. If we could get a helium blimp into the Jetstream, then we could be on the other side of the world in 24 hours for a sawbuck each in fuel and 40 bucks in meals.
This is precisely why homo sapiens should be working on the spatial diversification of mother earth's DNA and not fighting petty little wars all over the globe.
I'm sure the rest of the universe is going to appreciate the plague of humanity visited upon them.... NOT!!
Private schools are subject to scruitiny by the entire relavent community (i.e. parents that pay for their kids to attend). Furthermore, I believe it's actually manifested much clearer in a private school considering the fact that if a parents have qualms with the teaching practices the school uses, they can take immediate action by pulling their kid out of that school.
Don't know about the US, but in the land of Oz private schools have a board of directors, a formal complaint process, an administrative tribunal, and an appeals process.
This gives the customers (ie. the parents) enormous recourse when moving to improve the quality of education their child is receiving. It also gives them power over the teachers. In the public school system, teachers usually have to do something illegal before the Board of Education moves against them.
Not true. Polygraphs are extremely reliable, they're just not a very good indicator of whether or not someone is lying.
However, one thing that Polygraph is extremely reliable at is measuring the body's relative degree of comfort. Some people feel uncomfortable lying, but most people are uncomfortable being interviewed by people with a vested interest in taking away their liberty.
Which is why there is a known way of beating Polygraph tests. Just feel comfortable about everything you do (including lying).
Bush does espouse conservative values, he just doesn't have any conservative values. In fact, he doesn't really have any values at all, apart from greed and self interest.
Still, there are a lot of greedy, self-interested people out there who are not going to let the deaths of 100000+ third world darkies get in the way of driving their 4mpg pickups and munching their way to early onset diabetes.
Check out this, Al-Qaida blatently admits ownership of the car bombings. And they are in Iraq. Imagine that...
From the Article:Al-Qaida's branch in Iraq said it carried out the first of the day's blasts...
Ah yes, the mysterious branch office of Al Qaida in Iraq. The one that mysteriously appear 6 months after the fall of Bahgdad. Led by the equally mysterious, and to date not captured nor even sighted, Allawi el Zaqawi. OK. You believe MSNBC. I'll hold a different opinion.
At the time, it was a good idea to hire the locals to do your bidding. After all, they know the culture and terrain better than we do.
It was a great idea, except you didn't hire the locals, Osama Bin Laden did. And he was from Jordan (via Saudi Arabia).
And you still haven't answered the question as to whether they were freedom fighters or terrorists. Under the definition you supplied two posts back, they were terrorists, as were the contras. If they were not terrorists, then your definition of a terrorist depends on whose side they are on. If they are on your side, they are a freedom fighter, if on the other side, a terrorist.
Soon after, Osama quickly went from friend to foe.
Not that soon. First there was a bloody (and preventable) civil war that killed nearly a million more people and brought the Taliban to power (almost by default). Which brings us to.....
Not to mention his oppressive Taliban regime in Afghanistan was pushing the envelope of what humanity would stand for.
Well, it wasn't his Taliban, he was more like a consultant, given that we wasn't Pashtun. The Mujahadin were mostly recruited from Saudi Arabia and Iran. Once the soviets withdrew and the civil war began, the majority of them either went home or joined Osama later for his holy crusade in Africa.
Hey, that was a cheap shot! But none the less, those solders responsible have been dealt with in the name of civil justice
Not to my recollection. I followed that case for as long as there was news stories on it, and I don't believe it even went to court martial. If I am wrong, I would be very interested in seeing a link if you have one to hand.
Truth be know; humanity will always have its wild animals in the proverbial garden. Sad, but true. Except Americans of course;)
When the government does not listen to the majority of the people, revolutions have historically been known to happen. I guess it all depends on how much influence is needed. Either by voice, or by arms.
Well, the former is useless, but the latter I would really like to see!
Basically, we dealed in the market of deregulated energy, setting up contracts for the retrofit of lighting, and HVAC system for building owners to save energy.
You sold negawatts? Pretty cool. Hard to imagine that you are a right-wing conservative.
I know most of the story of power deregulation in California. However I will read your link and see if there is something to blame on Gray Davis.
Also, you still haven't told me the name of the terrorist organization that was operating in Iraq before you invaded.
First, let me congratulate you on persisting so far. Oh I get it now! You're for peace, but against the means to obtain it.
Oh I get it now! You're for peace, which as we all know really means war. Yes, peace is war. Yes, the means to obtain peace is endless war. Of course.
Was??? More like IS. Have you not been paying attention to the news? We have terrorist blowing up car bombs outside of Iraqi (not American) police stations, abducting innocent international civilians and sawing their heads off in the most barbaric of ways.
Well, see you've given the Iraqis freedom already! They weren't blowing up cars or beheading people before you liberated them, and so having given them liberation they are now free to carry out their terrorist activities.
Of course, it's not that the semantics have changed. This isn't a resistance, or an insurgency or an armed struggle against an occupying force. No, now every time someone blows something up (except for Americans of course, who get a free pass on any kind of despicable murderous behaviour because they are such freedom loving, democracy promoting, morally upstanding god fearing good guys), then it's now terrorism. It's not like you just changed the definition of terrorism to fit your political agenda.
Terrorism: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons"
Would the contras fall under this definition, or were they "freedom fighters"? How about the mujahadin in Afghanistan, led by arch-enemy Osama Bin Laden? When they won the cold war for you, were they terrorists or freedom fighters?
I'm all in favor of liberating N. Korea.
I thought you tried that once already. Given the outcome of the last attempt, I'm not sure if the South Koreans are too keen for you to have another go. Especially as your occupying force has been driving around drunk and running over 6 year old girls recently. But hey! Can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs, much less a full scale all Asia war!
Speaking of aid, did you know that it was America who was the first to physically (not monetary) bring aid to Indonesia the moment news got loose regarding the tsunami.
You mean apart from the Indonesian military, who BTW have been fighting a bloody civil war in Aceh for twenty years? By the way, thanks for crashing your military chopper on the only runway in the area, holding up aid deliveries for half a day.
Now you may criticize the initial 15 million proposed by Bush.
By the time Bush had proposed that amount, my country had already raised approx US$76 million. And we had support teams and military personal on the ground while you were still dicking around in the South China Sea. Not that I'm blowing wind up my own country's skirt, but just to counter how wonderful you think you are.
Throwing money in the wind by all these nations is nothing more then a political pissing contest now which in my opinion will again, cause more harm then good in the long run.
That's a brilliant rationalisation of your puny contribution. You should be in politics!
>>>You are incorrect. The President can only be impeached by the congress or the house. The citizens can't impeach the President. Sovereign immunity.
Ahh, but the people can influence their politicians irregardless of the depth of bureaucracy in place. And if the representatives do not listen, decisive measures are taken at the level from local city, county, state, all the way up the Washington DC. So yes, change can and has happened in the past this way.
Ahh, but influence is not the same word as impeach. But don't let that inconvenient fact stop you.
It's frightening to people like you because your current view on the world was shattered when evil and heinous acts continued on western civilization (9-11 for example).
You couldn't be more wrong. My worldview was completely affirmed by the events of 911. That so many people were taken in by such a transparent charade is the frightening thing. But you go ahead and believe that the terrorists are under your bed. Won't change anything really. Simple-minded people always need something external to be frightened of. It helps them rationalise their bigotry.
Truth be known, you must ALWAYS fight for what is right and good in this world.
Which is why the world must resist American imperialism as much as possible. Since WWII, American behaviour on the world stage has deteriorated to the point where it is completely unconscionable. That is, no one of conscience can stand it any longer. Sure, the racist, the bigoted, the xenophobic, and the just plain greedy love it as long as they recieve the benefits. But those people don't count the cost, either to others or their fellow citizens.
The overall goal is to eliminate the Middle Eastern terrorist organizations as they are a clear and present danger to the west.
So which terrorist organisation was based in Iraq?
When you really think about it, the war wasn't about Iraq, but rather about terrorism.
Hmmm, nice try to newspeak me. I think about it, and the war was about Iraq, not terrorism. But when YOU think about it, two plus two equals five.
Hence, Iraq was merely a "battle".
Was?????
The "War" is terrorism. Thus, it should be called "The Battle of Iraq". Not the War in Iraq.
Oh right. What was the terrorist organisation that was based in Iraq again?
However, America has done far more good for this world in terms of aid, funding, and free services then anyone else has. Thats a fact.
Would you care to back that statement up with some facts?
This is BS. We don't create dictators around the world.
Yes, you do.
If anything, we are trying to prevent them from taking root.
Give me one example.
But that would require a nation of super-power status like the US.
No, it would just require you to stop funding rebellions in countries whose goverment you don't like.
And well...liberals don't like that. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.
Liberals don't like ceasing funding to foreign insurgencies? Hmmm, if memory serves me liberals weren't to happy about funding the contras, a terrorist organisation, with the proceeds of arms sales to Iran. Or was that the conservatives that indicted Oliver North?
Wrong, that is incorrect. Here in America, any current president can be impeached by the people through a vote at anytime.
You are incorrect. The President can only be impeached by the congress or the house. The citizens can't impeach the President. Sovereign immunity.
In fact, in 2002, Governor Gray Davis of California was impeached (recalled) and thus a new election took place
You are confused. Gray Davis was not recalled by the citizens of California, he was recalled by the Republicans (ie. elected representives of the opposition).
Even after you're elected, your still held responsible to do a good job. If the public starts getting angry and irate over your performance, it's safe to say your ass will be impeached.
Say "Hi" to Alice for me next time you go past the Queen of Hearts will ya?
I'm proud to site at least one. America. Home of the free... Home of the proud... And, home of the brave.
Don't you mean "Land of the free and home of the brave"?
It's amazing that you don't even know your own national anthem, and yet you know everything there is to know about Middle East. Must be that amazing ejakashun sistum you have. (BTW, it's "cite", not "site").
The whole point about the Iraq war was twofold. The main reason was strategic in ensuring stability in the Middle East by promoting democracy. The second was to get rid of a thug no other nation was willing to do.
Sure it was. At least, that's what we tell the rednecks right? (nudge, nudge, wink, wink). You can repeat the lies above as often as you like, I am never going to believe them. The fact that a great many people in the US believe them is one of the more frightening ideas of the 21st century.
I never said or eluded from the fact the war in Iraq was not about Islamic extremists.
Correct, you said that the war in Iraq was about Islamic extremists. Which it isn't. Well at least not until you started killing civilians in large numbers. After that it became about Islamic extremists.
In fact, Russia, France and Germany were the main countries opposed to this war because they were knee shit-deep in dubious activities such as the selling of arms and maintaining huge oil and construction contracts with Saddam.
God forbid that any American would do business with a brutal dictator!! Lucky for the rest of us the the Americans are such outstanding stand up guys (and gals). Think of the consequences if the world's richest nation did business with dictators!
al Qaida bombed the the World Trade Center towers in 1993 using a van packed with explosives and detonated it in the parking garage. If that's not an official declaration of war, I don't know what is!.
The evidence that al Qaida was involved was inconclusive, so I'll just have to take your word for it. BTW, the French sunk a ship in a New Zealand harbour in the 80's. Is that a declaration of war?
I don't think, I KNOW it to be true. According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics; blacks were seven time more likely to commit homicides then whites in the year 2002.
You missed "per capita". In total numbers, the story is different. You also forgot to mention that blacks are 3 times more likely to get caught, 4 times more likely to be convicted of a crime they did not commit, and 2 times more likely of being convicted than a white person. However, I am not interested in following this sub-thread. My interest is current US foreign policy and the current war in Iraq.
>>>Would that be the views of the Shia, Sunni or Kurds?
Remember was I said about democratic accountability to a nation as a whole? Yup...that's right. I believe I preemptively answered your question.
You start with a false premise and lead right to your false conclusion. You have a particular belief of what the word "nation" means, and you think that everyone in the world shares that belief. The "nation" of Iraq is a fiction, but unlike the normal fictious idea of nation, the Iraq fiction was not created by the "Iraqis". And so, the "nation" of which you speak does not really exist, except in the minds of those who wish to maintain the illusion. Currently, that would be the Americans.
I hope so. We already have the momentum going, so I say we do it. So to answer your question. Not just a "yes", but a "hell yes!!" The world would be far better off without dictators.
Well, perhaps your nation could do the rest of the world a favour and stop creating so many dictators then. It will certainly make your job easier.
Very true. Getting rid of Saddam in this manor would only leave a vacuum of power to be quickly filled by another person/group/tribe...etc. But I can't imagine the alternative being worse then Saddam.
You probably thought that about Yugoslavia after Tito as well.
As long as the citizens have the power to impeach their elected representatives,
Well, in your country and mine, they can't. So what is your point?
then I still contend equal ownership of responsibility between both government and the citizens of said country.
Can you give an example of a country where the citizens can impeach their elected representatives?
In a true democracy, the government cannot survive without the peoples support of its representatives in the first place.
This is about fanatics that want to KILL in the name of Allah.
That Iraq was the most secular country in the Middle East after Turkey only makes your statement all the more ridiculous.
Are you reffering perhaps to the Wahhabis? Or the Mujahadeen? You know that those people are not from Iraq right?
Al Qaeda officially declared war on America. Yes, Osama Bin Laden called a press conference in 1998 of mostly Pakistani journalists and give them some good old demogougery, and the video was not shown in the US until after Sept2001. Amazingly convenient that.
I have a right to defend myself both a as a citizen and as a living breathing life form on the planet. It's either them, or me.
Sure it is. The fanatical muslim hordes are about to overrun your country at any minute. Better start buying some ammo and canned beans.
Simple as that...no really, it's not that complicated of an issue.
Oh well, when you put it like that! How could I have been so reticent at bombing the shit out of Arabs and torturing them in jail cells??!!!! Sorry, in future I'll try and kill a muslim a day like everyone else.
we are seeing a rather disproportional violent uprising in relation to others that are followers of different faith.
Yes, but just because that's what you are seeing doesn't mean it's true. You probably think that all of the homicides in the US are committed by black men too. But don't let the facts get in the way of sky falling on your head.
Tell that to the citizens of Israel and it's government. But why should it matter, your the only one with a clue and everyone else in Israel are fucking morrons, right? Yaaaa sure... keep thinking there buddy.
I'm wondering. Do you know who supplied Iran with weapons for 8 years during the Iran/Iraq war?
The only time you can seperate the two is if the people of a country do not have the vote to support and change the government...such as China for example and previously Iraq
How about Iran before the Shah was 'helped' into power, or the Sandanista government of Nicaragua. Were they the 'wrong type' of democracies for you?
Based on my observation of you separating the power of government and its citizens, and de voiding yourself of personal responsibility or understanding the lack there of; I would say you fit the classic American definition of a liberal.
Well, I'm not an American, but I take being called the American definition of a liberal as a compliment.
The mullahs of Iran do NOT want a democracy in place for Iraq as it dilutes their vision of an Islamic theocracy for all of the Middle East.
Yada, yada, yada. You heard that on talk back radio right? Iran had a democracy before the UK/US interfered and there is internal pressure on the theocracy to move back to a democracy again. Besides which, any election in Iraq is almost sure to be won by the Shia majority, which would suit Tehran just fine. This is really enjoyable! It's like arguing with the bullshit they broadcast on television.
Had Iraq formed a democracy in our image, they would be using the same schema we use...which is based on our own constitution.
Er, I think you meant to use future tense here. Iraq is not a democracy yet.
And if the culture of Iraq wants to be based on capitalism, why is that a bad thing?
I didn't say it was. But I don't like American crony capitalism, and I don't think it's good for Iraq OR America.
They people of Iraq will elect citizens of Iraq to form their own constitution that best fits the public's views and culture.
Would that be the views of the Shia, Sunni or Kurds?
You really should educate yourself more on the philosophies of governments and how they are formed. I know how governments are formed, and especially how democracies were formed. Did you know that democracy in Englan
>>>Let's say the United States of America, a known aggressor, had nuclear weapons. Oh wait... it does."
This *might* come as a shock to you, but all major countries have a history of aggression regardless if they possess nukes or not. So your statement is a moot point.
As is yours about Iraq having nuclear weapons. It's only because you are on some holy crusade against the Muslim world that you think there is a difference between the US owning nuclear weapons and Iraq.
Speaking of which, Israel is not founded on a culture or religion (Islam) that promotes the purging of "infidels" (anyone that is NOT Muslim).
Well, since you are so hung up on Israel (are you Jewish?), let's talk about that. The Jews believe that they are God's chosen people, and even go to great lengths to prevent Jews marrying the goiyim(sp?). That's religious bigotry in my book, but of course we have to hold the Jewish people to a different standard to everyone else because of the holocaust.
By the way, if you live in the "West", then your culture is founded on a religion that promotes the purging of heathens, pagans, muslims and Jews. The Christians have gone on pogroms, crusades and committed genocide in the name of their God, so I wouldn't be calling the entire Muslim world murderers if I were you, without looking like a complete hypocrite.
If I was living in Israel, I would be worried shitless over Iran.
Then you are clueless, or completely brainwashed with bullshit.
Yes, exactly. In fact, if you're an American citizen
I am not.
and find we have done crimes against humanity...
They have.
well I suggest you take yourself to court.
A Chilean group that lost family during the Pinochet regime tried to do exactly that. They brought a complaint against Henry Kissinger in the Hague. Of course, the US does not recognise the ICC or any external legal authortiy, so they got exactly nowhere. American govt. officials are above the law you see.
So what ever actions our government makes, its citizens too may also face the consequences.
Your government does not even face the consequences of it's actions, so how on earth can we expect the populace to do so?
It's always someone else's fault isn't it. It's not that you armed a group of bored unemployed Saudi men with Stingers and M16's then left them to rot once they won the cold war for you, no. That would mean that YOU are responsible. No, it's that damn extremist barbarian religion Islam and it's crazy medieval followers, the Jihadists. It's their fault! Now let's nuke them back to the medieval age they enjoy so much.
Again, it's all about democratic accountability in times of warfare.
There is no accountability in times of warfare, and often there is very little democracy.
Should Iran launch a nuclear weapon against Israel, then Israel's government has the sovereign right to counter the attack regardless of the bloodshed it ensues.
Why would Iran launch an attack against it's ally?
At this point, you can only have peace through victory regardless of the winner.
So your agrument is this. Because peace inevitably follows war, then the way to bring peace to Iraq is to start a war there. And in the peace that follows, you will create a democratic government in your own image, sponsored by your own corporations, and the sun will be shining and the people will be happy?
And then you woke up and your mummy was making you breakfast and the world wasn't really made of chocolate?
It's an action to resolve irreconcilable differences when all diplomatic options have failed.
So what was the iireconcilable difference that the Bush junta had with the Hussein junta?
Once a country has elected their representatives, that country as a whole can be held accountable for the actions taken place by that government be it good OR bad.
Really? So does that mean that the average American can be held accountable for the 3000 people dissappeared by the Pinochet regime? I think you would find very few people, let alone Americans that would agree with that sentiment.
For example, lets say saddam did have nuclear weapons (he doesn't, but I wouldn't put the goal past him had he remained in power)
Let's say the United States of America, a known aggressor, had nuclear weapons. Oh wait... it does.
and used them against the Israel.
In attack or defense? Israel had nuclear weapons before the Iraqi nuclear program even started.
At that point, would it be fair for Israel to retaliate against a country that was oppressed by a dictator that did not reflect the majority of its people?
War is not fair. War is many things, but it certainly not fair. War is politics by other means. Countries (and people) are always trying to impose their will on others. When they succeed, we usually refer to them as "the winner".
I would say no.
Your opinion on what is fair is largely irrelevant as to what course of action Israel would take.
However, let's say saddam was elected in a fair and democratic way. Then at that point, it's fair game in order for Israel to preserve its nation and take out its aggressor.
A country with the means to take out an aggressor will always do so, regardless of whether it is fair game or not.
I'm not exactly sure what your point is here. You are saying that if Iraq has a democratically elected government, and it attacks one of it's neighbours (for example, Israel), then it's OK for it's neighbour to retaliate and massacre large numbers of Iraqi's. And somehow this will "restore order"?
I know that Americans tend to think of War as "order", because once you flatten a city with a medium yield nuke, there is none of that chaotic "activity" going on, like buying, selling, eating breakfast and so forth, but there are other parts of the world that tend to think of "order" in human affairs as a time of peace and prosperity.
So apart from giving Israel the green light to nuke Falluja, how does democracy promote "order" again?
Or, deal with the threat by promoting democrocy in order to restore order to that region.
Explain to me how promoting democrocy(sic) will restore order in that region?
There have been three democracies meddling in that region for the past 80 years, and only one of them has done anything to promote order. Can you guess which one it was?
I'll take a wait and see attitude. The US has been down this sort of road before, and managed to some degree to come to its senses.
That's an interesting comment, but I believe that this time there may have been a qualitative change, and the awakening process will become a lot different. It is probably tempting to think of the "War On Terrorism" as a Macarthy reprise, but I think it is more fundamental than that. With each passing day, the current situation in the US looks more and more like an internal power struggle. Unfortunately for the Iraqi's, they seem to be caught in a proxy civil war, in which the declining powers of the smokestack era mount one last bid to wrest power away from the new technocrats.
If the US continues to pursue its current domestic and international strategies, then I think the end result will be the eroding of its power, and since nature abhors a vacuum, other powers will accumulate what the US loses.
I think US power will actually change it's very nature. Up until now, US power has been based on it's strength as a nation state. In the future though, US power will be concentrated into the major metropolitan areas like NY, SoCal, and it will be entirely economic. This will naturally create an enourmous economic underclass of those whose incomes formally depended on non-technical industries such as farming, mining and making bombs (surprisingly, the very same people who voted a deserting drunk into the nation's highest office). These people are not going to go quietly into the night like they did during the dust bowl era. No, they have been driving their lincolns, eating their super-size burgers and watching their cable-tv for too long to accept that they are now part of the third world. And so, unfortunately, there is going to have to be some controls put on these people. They are not going to be allowed to interfere with the economic engine. Thus, no more automatic weapons, or cheap gas, or beating up the white-collar workers, and explosives are going to be right out.
But for the productive people of the new economic engine, life in the US will be much like it was in Singapore for 50 years. Prosperous, clean, efficient and sterile.
Slashdot Mirror
er .. isn't nVidia Taiwanese?
.....
Besides which, all those companies that you mention have their fabrication plants in Taiwan, Japan or China
So the chip designers are still in the US, but looking at the staff roll-call on chip design at intel, I see a lot of Chinese and Indian names. If their countries raise the standard of living to comfortable Western standards, they might go back to Asia.
Then where are you?
I bet your mother cries when she realises you are too fucking dumb to spell 'cries'.
Oh, and fuck you.
Woohoo! First post.
... the article, right ...
oh
Is this a dupe?
This technology is already used in Japan.
Imagine a beowulf cluster of these batteries!
Wha? I had mysql up and running in an hour. Postgres on the other hand was still broken after 2.5 days.
if you can install postgresql, then you are a god. imagine how advanced you are if you can actually use it.
Okay, so my government, as well as everyone else in the world will always be at least a month behind the US government's spooks,
... so I won't elaborate.
I don't know who your Government is, but it unlikely that they use Microsoft operating systems for anything important. If they do, well then they are going to get everything they deserve anyway.
I think that Microsoft just gave every other government in the world good reason to switch IMMEDIATELY to Linux!
Every other Government of the world already has a good reason to switch to Linux. But the wheels of government grind very slowly, and corporate money is often the grease for those wheels too.
. It's common knowlege that the CIA spies on foreign businesses in order to give USA based businesses a competitive edge.
First of all, it's NOT common knowledge, even though it is altogether true. However, in the best known example, it was listening devices (otherwise known as bugs), not shoddy operating systems that provided the information required.
I mean honestly, how much hardware gets built in the US anymore?
Not much, but an amazing amount is still designed there. Especially CPUs. So it may be a little early for predicting the demise of the US electronics industry.
Imagine if Asian hardware manufacturers pay MS the same attention that they used to pay Linux?
That is not really a short term possibility. Several things would need to happen before that situation is even likely.
First, there would need to be a consumer grade Linux bundled with a consumer grade PC, that was well marketed to a large non-US market (EG. Korea, Japan, China)
Second, this consumer grade Linux would need some kind of driver to accelerate it's uptake to the millions.
Third, an ISV industry would need to develop around this Linux to push demand for greater hardware.
Sorry, having dinner
With no sales commission, there's no incentive to be incredibly successful,
.... to lying, or fudging or overpromising.
There's no incentive to be incredibly dishonest either, but that doesn't seem to worry Americans so much.
or to put extreme effort in.
I've known companies with no sales commission, and the sales team usually just coast.
The protestant work ethic has a lot to answer for. These 'coasting' salesmen, do they make sales? Are their companies profitable? Are they perhaps secure that their company makes great products, and it really their job to manage the relationship between their company and their customers?
When you cut the direct link between performance and rewards, you destroy the motivation, and you lose the important corporate culture of rewarding success and punishing failure.
Always a popular philosophy, no matter how many times it been proven how destructive and counter-productive reward/punishment cultures are.
The only cultural behaviour that has ever achieved ANYTHING in human history is CO-OPERATION. Why is that so hard for people to get?
A four fold increase. Not likely. You might get the average car up to 40mpg but 50 or 60 would be next to impossible.
... twice. There is absolutely no technological impediment to making the average car get 60 in the city and 100 on the freeway. The only impediment is capital investment (new) and existing capital amortization.
I have posted on this subject before, so I won't include the details. I'm not sure if you are schilling for the automobile industry here, but not only is 60mpg possible for a standard four door sedan, it has already been done
Power plants are also pretty efficient. There is no real way make them four times as efficient.
Wrong again. There is and they have (just not for very many).
old appliances and even old homes that would cost a HUGE amount to upgrade in both money and in energy
Yes, but that is not efficiency, it's capital investment.
5. When an light bulb burns out we replace it with a compact florescent.
In the US only there are more than 50 large powerplants to be saved in changing incandescants to compacts alone. And that's just ONE change.
Probably the best source of biodeisel (in terms of cost and availability) is used cooking oil. God only knows how many millions of gallons of the stuff that MacDonalds throws away each year, not to mention KFC, Hungry Jacks etc etc.
Cooking oil is good because there are several ways you can use it as deisel.
One is an onboard 'cracker' which basically heats the pure vegetable oil before sending it to the engine.
The second is increasing the cetane level by adding ethanol or methanol. Only really works in very high compressing engines.
The third is the conventional method of cracking the oil with (IIRC) caustic soda and some distillation process, details of which escape me at the moment, but are freely available on the web.
If you start growing just for biodiesel then I think you will see the cost go up.
I'm not sure if we would even consider that starting out. We already create oil for cooking burgers/chicken and so forth, so in the short term, we would just use the existing supply.
However, in the long term, we really need to consider that there is more energy to be gained in power efficiency than there is in the ground, and the great thing about efficiency is that it only has a capital cost, not an ongoing cost.
OPEC knows this all too well, which is why they will not let the price of Oil go too high. The last time OPEC did that saw the greatest increase in energy intensity in the United States in over 100 years, a level from which it has slowly declined to the present day. And as long as you have Oilmen in the Whitehouse, that won't change.
So if it came right down to the wire, the current production of vegetable oil, plus a fourfold increase in energy efficiency would probably meet 70-80% of the current energy requirements. The rest would need to be supplied from something else.
Okay how is it more efficient? It may be better for the enviroment or even better for nation security but how is it more efficent than petrodiesel?
.... if you can produce biodeisel for less than $15-$16 per barrel, then it is cheaper than petrodeisel. Otherwise, it is not.
In oil wells that are pressure negative (ie, you need to pump something in for the oil to come out), like in the US, it costs US$15 a barrel to get the stuff out of the ground.
Then there is the cost of refining the stuff into petroleum, about another 50c to $1 per barrel.
Distribution costs are probably the same for both fules.
SO
I agree. I have yet to see a viable technology that will allow us to replicate the current level of service we get from jet airliners for air travel.
Right, high level of service, but at enourmous cost. If we could get a helium blimp into the Jetstream, then we could be on the other side of the world in 24 hours for a sawbuck each in fuel and 40 bucks in meals.
This is precisely why homo sapiens should be working on the spatial diversification of mother earth's DNA and not fighting petty little wars all over the globe.
.... NOT!!
I'm sure the rest of the universe is going to appreciate the plague of humanity visited upon them
Disgruntled Defence Signals Directorate employee, will exchange secrets for diet coke.
Who DID throw those children overboard?
Private schools are subject to scruitiny by the entire relavent community (i.e. parents that pay for their kids to attend). Furthermore, I believe it's actually manifested much clearer in a private school considering the fact that if a parents have qualms with the teaching practices the school uses, they can take immediate action by pulling their kid out of that school.
Don't know about the US, but in the land of Oz private schools have a board of directors, a formal complaint process, an administrative tribunal, and an appeals process.
This gives the customers (ie. the parents) enormous recourse when moving to improve the quality of education their child is receiving. It also gives them power over the teachers. In the public school system, teachers usually have to do something illegal before the Board of Education moves against them.
Polygraphs are so pathetically unreliable,
Not true. Polygraphs are extremely reliable, they're just not a very good indicator of whether or not someone is lying.
However, one thing that Polygraph is extremely reliable at is measuring the body's relative degree of comfort. Some people feel uncomfortable lying, but most people are uncomfortable being interviewed by people with a vested interest in taking away their liberty.
Which is why there is a known way of beating Polygraph tests. Just feel comfortable about everything you do (including lying).
Nice post, however ...
Bush does espouse conservative values, he just doesn't have any conservative values. In fact, he doesn't really have any values at all, apart from greed and self interest.
Still, there are a lot of greedy, self-interested people out there who are not going to let the deaths of 100000+ third world darkies get in the way of driving their 4mpg pickups and munching their way to early onset diabetes.
Guess who they voted for?
Check out this, Al-Qaida blatently admits ownership of the car bombings. And they are in Iraq. Imagine that...
...
.....
;)
From the Article:Al-Qaida's branch in Iraq said it carried out the first of the day's blasts
Ah yes, the mysterious branch office of Al Qaida in Iraq. The one that mysteriously appear 6 months after the fall of Bahgdad. Led by the equally mysterious, and to date not captured nor even sighted, Allawi el Zaqawi. OK. You believe MSNBC. I'll hold a different opinion.
At the time, it was a good idea to hire the locals to do your bidding. After all, they know the culture and terrain better than we do.
It was a great idea, except you didn't hire the locals, Osama Bin Laden did. And he was from Jordan (via Saudi Arabia).
And you still haven't answered the question as to whether they were freedom fighters or terrorists. Under the definition you supplied two posts back, they were terrorists, as were the contras.
If they were not terrorists, then your definition of a terrorist depends on whose side they are on. If they are on your side, they are a freedom fighter, if on the other side, a terrorist.
Soon after, Osama quickly went from friend to foe.
Not that soon. First there was a bloody (and preventable) civil war that killed nearly a million more people and brought the Taliban to power (almost by default).
Which brings us to
Not to mention his oppressive Taliban regime in Afghanistan was pushing the envelope of what humanity would stand for.
Well, it wasn't his Taliban, he was more like a consultant, given that we wasn't Pashtun. The Mujahadin were mostly recruited from Saudi Arabia and Iran. Once the soviets withdrew and the civil war began, the majority of them either went home or joined Osama later for his holy crusade in Africa.
Hey, that was a cheap shot! But none the less, those solders responsible have been dealt with in the name of civil justice
Not to my recollection. I followed that case for as long as there was news stories on it, and I don't believe it even went to court martial. If I am wrong, I would be very interested in seeing a link if you have one to hand.
Truth be know; humanity will always have its wild animals in the proverbial garden. Sad, but true.
Except Americans of course
When the government does not listen to the majority of the people, revolutions have historically been known to happen. I guess it all depends on how much influence is needed. Either by voice, or by arms.
Well, the former is useless, but the latter I would really like to see!
Basically, we dealed in the market of deregulated energy, setting up contracts for the retrofit of lighting, and HVAC system for building owners to save energy.
You sold negawatts? Pretty cool. Hard to imagine that you are a right-wing conservative.
I know most of the story of power deregulation in California. However I will read your link and see if there is something to blame on Gray Davis.
Also, you still haven't told me the name of the terrorist organization that was operating in Iraq before you invaded.
First, let me congratulate you on persisting so far.
Oh I get it now! You're for peace, but against the means to obtain it.
Oh I get it now! You're for peace, which as we all know really means war. Yes, peace is war. Yes, the means to obtain peace is endless war. Of course.
Was??? More like IS. Have you not been paying attention to the news? We have terrorist blowing up car bombs outside of Iraqi (not American) police stations, abducting innocent international civilians and sawing their heads off in the most barbaric of ways.
Well, see you've given the Iraqis freedom already! They weren't blowing up cars or beheading people before you liberated them, and so having given them liberation they are now free to carry out their terrorist activities.
Of course, it's not that the semantics have changed. This isn't a resistance, or an insurgency or an armed struggle against an occupying force. No, now every time someone blows something up (except for Americans of course, who get a free pass on any kind of despicable murderous behaviour because they are such freedom loving, democracy promoting, morally upstanding god fearing good guys), then it's now terrorism. It's not like you just changed the definition of terrorism to fit your political agenda.
Terrorism: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons"
Would the contras fall under this definition, or were they "freedom fighters"?
How about the mujahadin in Afghanistan, led by arch-enemy Osama Bin Laden? When they won the cold war for you, were they terrorists or freedom fighters?
I'm all in favor of liberating N. Korea.
I thought you tried that once already. Given the outcome of the last attempt, I'm not sure if the South Koreans are too keen for you to have another go. Especially as your occupying force has been driving around drunk and running over 6 year old girls recently.
But hey! Can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs, much less a full scale all Asia war!
Speaking of aid, did you know that it was America who was the first to physically (not monetary) bring aid to Indonesia the moment news got loose regarding the tsunami.
You mean apart from the Indonesian military, who BTW have been fighting a bloody civil war in Aceh for twenty years? By the way, thanks for crashing your military chopper on the only runway in the area, holding up aid deliveries for half a day.
Now you may criticize the initial 15 million proposed by Bush.
By the time Bush had proposed that amount, my country had already raised approx US$76 million. And we had support teams and military personal on the ground while you were still dicking around in the South China Sea.
Not that I'm blowing wind up my own country's skirt, but just to counter how wonderful you think you are.
Throwing money in the wind by all these nations is nothing more then a political pissing contest now which in my opinion will again, cause more harm then good in the long run.
That's a brilliant rationalisation of your puny contribution. You should be in politics!
>>>You are incorrect. The President can only be impeached by the congress or the house. The citizens can't impeach the President. Sovereign immunity.
Ahh, but the people can influence their politicians irregardless of the depth of bureaucracy in place. And if the representatives do not listen, decisive measures are taken at the level from local city, county, state, all the way up the Washington DC. So yes, change can and has happened in the past this way.
Ahh, but influence is not the same word as impeach. But don't let that inconvenient fact stop you.
Explicitly, you are correct.
It's frightening to people like you because your current view on the world was shattered when evil and heinous acts continued on western civilization (9-11 for example).
You couldn't be more wrong. My worldview was completely affirmed by the events of 911. That so many people were taken in by such a transparent charade is the frightening thing. But you go ahead and believe that the terrorists are under your bed. Won't change anything really. Simple-minded people always need something external to be frightened of. It helps them rationalise their bigotry.
Truth be known, you must ALWAYS fight for what is right and good in this world.
Which is why the world must resist American imperialism as much as possible. Since WWII, American behaviour on the world stage has deteriorated to the point where it is completely unconscionable. That is, no one of conscience can stand it any longer. Sure, the racist, the bigoted, the xenophobic, and the just plain greedy love it as long as they recieve the benefits. But those people don't count the cost, either to others or their fellow citizens.
The overall goal is to eliminate the Middle Eastern terrorist organizations as they are a clear and present danger to the west.
So which terrorist organisation was based in Iraq?
When you really think about it, the war wasn't about Iraq, but rather about terrorism.
Hmmm, nice try to newspeak me. I think about it, and the war was about Iraq, not terrorism. But when YOU think about it, two plus two equals five.
Hence, Iraq was merely a "battle".
Was?????
The "War" is terrorism. Thus, it should be called "The Battle of Iraq". Not the War in Iraq.
Oh right. What was the terrorist organisation that was based in Iraq again?
However, America has done far more good for this world in terms of aid, funding, and free services then anyone else has. Thats a fact.
Would you care to back that statement up with some facts?
This is BS. We don't create dictators around the world.
Yes, you do.
If anything, we are trying to prevent them from taking root.
Give me one example.
But that would require a nation of super-power status like the US.
No, it would just require you to stop funding rebellions in countries whose goverment you don't like.
And well...liberals don't like that. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.
Liberals don't like ceasing funding to foreign insurgencies? Hmmm, if memory serves me liberals weren't to happy about funding the contras, a terrorist organisation, with the proceeds of arms sales to Iran. Or was that the conservatives that indicted Oliver North?
Wrong, that is incorrect. Here in America, any current president can be impeached by the people through a vote at anytime.
You are incorrect. The President can only be impeached by the congress or the house. The citizens can't impeach the President. Sovereign immunity.
In fact, in 2002, Governor Gray Davis of California was impeached (recalled) and thus a new election took place
You are confused. Gray Davis was not recalled by the citizens of California, he was recalled by the Republicans (ie. elected representives of the opposition).
Even after you're elected, your still held responsible to do a good job. If the public starts getting angry and irate over your performance, it's safe to say your ass will be impeached.
Say "Hi" to Alice for me next time you go past the Queen of Hearts will ya?
I'm proud to site at least one. America. Home of the free... Home of the proud... And, home of the brave.
Don't you mean "Land of the free and home of the brave"?
It's amazing that you don't even know your own national anthem, and yet you know everything there is to know about Middle East. Must be that amazing ejakashun sistum you have. (BTW, it's "cite", not "site").
The whole point about the Iraq war was twofold. The main reason was strategic in ensuring stability in the Middle East by promoting democracy. The second was to get rid of a thug no other nation was willing to do.
Sure it was. At least, that's what we tell the rednecks right? (nudge, nudge, wink, wink). You can repeat the lies above as often as you like, I am never going to believe them. The fact that a great many people in the US believe them is one of the more frightening ideas of the 21st century.
I never said or eluded from the fact the war in Iraq was not about Islamic extremists.
Correct, you said that the war in Iraq was about Islamic extremists. Which it isn't. Well at least not until you started killing civilians in large numbers. After that it became about Islamic extremists.
In fact, Russia, France and Germany were the main countries opposed to this war because they were knee shit-deep in dubious activities such as the selling of arms and maintaining huge oil and construction contracts with Saddam.
God forbid that any American would do business with a brutal dictator!! Lucky for the rest of us the the Americans are such outstanding stand up guys (and gals). Think of the consequences if the world's richest nation did business with dictators!
al Qaida bombed the the World Trade Center towers in 1993 using a van packed with explosives and detonated it in the parking garage. If that's not an official declaration of war, I don't know what is!.
The evidence that al Qaida was involved was inconclusive, so I'll just have to take your word for it.
BTW, the French sunk a ship in a New Zealand harbour in the 80's. Is that a declaration of war?
I don't think, I KNOW it to be true. According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics; blacks were seven time more likely to commit homicides then whites in the year 2002.
You missed "per capita". In total numbers, the story is different. You also forgot to mention that blacks are 3 times more likely to get caught, 4 times more likely to be convicted of a crime they did not commit, and 2 times more likely of being convicted than a white person. However, I am not interested in following this sub-thread. My interest is current US foreign policy and the current war in Iraq.
>>>Would that be the views of the Shia, Sunni or Kurds?
Remember was I said about democratic accountability to a nation as a whole? Yup...that's right. I believe I preemptively answered your question.
You start with a false premise and lead right to your false conclusion. You have a particular belief of what the word "nation" means, and you think that everyone in the world shares that belief. The "nation" of Iraq is a fiction, but unlike the normal fictious idea of nation, the Iraq fiction was not created by the "Iraqis".
And so, the "nation" of which you speak does not really exist, except in the minds of those who wish to maintain the illusion. Currently, that would be the Americans.
I hope so. We already have the momentum going, so I say we do it. So to answer your question. Not just a "yes", but a "hell yes!!" The world would be far better off without dictators.
Well, perhaps your nation could do the rest of the world a favour and stop creating so many dictators then. It will certainly make your job easier.
Very true. Getting rid of Saddam in this manor would only leave a vacuum of power to be quickly filled by another person/group/tribe...etc. But I can't imagine the alternative being worse then Saddam.
You probably thought that about Yugoslavia after Tito as well.
As long as the citizens have the power to impeach their elected representatives,
Well, in your country and mine, they can't. So what is your point?
then I still contend equal ownership of responsibility between both government and the citizens of said country.
Can you give an example of a country where the citizens can impeach their elected representatives?
In a true democracy, the government cannot survive without the peoples support of its representatives in the first place.
Where is this true democracy of which you speak?
This is about fanatics that want to KILL in the name of Allah.
That Iraq was the most secular country in the Middle East after Turkey only makes your statement all the more ridiculous.
Are you reffering perhaps to the Wahhabis? Or the Mujahadeen? You know that those people are not from Iraq right?
Al Qaeda officially declared war on America.
Yes, Osama Bin Laden called a press conference in 1998 of mostly Pakistani journalists and give them some good old demogougery, and the video was not shown in the US until after Sept2001. Amazingly convenient that.
I have a right to defend myself both a as a citizen and as a living breathing life form on the planet. It's either them, or me.
Sure it is. The fanatical muslim hordes are about to overrun your country at any minute. Better start buying some ammo and canned beans.
Simple as that...no really, it's not that complicated of an issue.
Oh well, when you put it like that! How could I have been so reticent at bombing the shit out of Arabs and torturing them in jail cells??!!!! Sorry, in future I'll try and kill a muslim a day like everyone else.
we are seeing a rather disproportional violent uprising in relation to others that are followers of different faith.
Yes, but just because that's what you are seeing doesn't mean it's true. You probably think that all of the homicides in the US are committed by black men too. But don't let the facts get in the way of sky falling on your head.
Tell that to the citizens of Israel and it's government. But why should it matter, your the only one with a clue and everyone else in Israel are fucking morrons, right? Yaaaa sure... keep thinking there buddy.
I'm wondering. Do you know who supplied Iran with weapons for 8 years during the Iran/Iraq war?
The only time you can seperate the two is if the people of a country do not have the vote to support and change the government...such as China for example and previously Iraq
How about Iran before the Shah was 'helped' into power, or the Sandanista government of Nicaragua. Were they the 'wrong type' of democracies for you?
Based on my observation of you separating the power of government and its citizens, and de voiding yourself of personal responsibility or understanding the lack there of; I would say you fit the classic American definition of a liberal.
Well, I'm not an American, but I take being called the American definition of a liberal as a compliment.
The mullahs of Iran do NOT want a democracy in place for Iraq as it dilutes their vision of an Islamic theocracy for all of the Middle East.
Yada, yada, yada. You heard that on talk back radio right? Iran had a democracy before the UK/US interfered and there is internal pressure on the theocracy to move back to a democracy again. Besides which, any election in Iraq is almost sure to be won by the Shia majority, which would suit Tehran just fine.
This is really enjoyable! It's like arguing with the bullshit they broadcast on television.
Had Iraq formed a democracy in our image, they would be using the same schema we use...which is based on our own constitution.
Er, I think you meant to use future tense here. Iraq is not a democracy yet.
And if the culture of Iraq wants to be based on capitalism, why is that a bad thing?
I didn't say it was. But I don't like American crony capitalism, and I don't think it's good for Iraq OR America.
They people of Iraq will elect citizens of Iraq to form their own constitution that best fits the public's views and culture.
Would that be the views of the Shia, Sunni or Kurds?
You really should educate yourself more on the philosophies of governments and how they are formed.
I know how governments are formed, and especially how democracies were formed. Did you know that democracy in Englan
>>>Let's say the United States of America, a known aggressor, had nuclear weapons. Oh wait ... it does."
This *might* come as a shock to you, but all major countries have a history of aggression regardless if they possess nukes or not. So your statement is a moot point.
As is yours about Iraq having nuclear weapons. It's only because you are on some holy crusade against the Muslim world that you think there is a difference between the US owning nuclear weapons and Iraq.
Speaking of which, Israel is not founded on a culture or religion (Islam) that promotes the purging of "infidels" (anyone that is NOT Muslim).
Well, since you are so hung up on Israel (are you Jewish?), let's talk about that. The Jews believe that they are God's chosen people, and even go to great lengths to prevent Jews marrying the goiyim(sp?). That's religious bigotry in my book, but of course we have to hold the Jewish people to a different standard to everyone else because of the holocaust.
By the way, if you live in the "West", then your culture is founded on a religion that promotes the purging of heathens, pagans, muslims and Jews. The Christians have gone on pogroms, crusades and committed genocide in the name of their God, so I wouldn't be calling the entire Muslim world murderers if I were you, without looking like a complete hypocrite.
If I was living in Israel, I would be worried shitless over Iran.
Then you are clueless, or completely brainwashed with bullshit.
Yes, exactly. In fact, if you're an American citizen
I am not.
and find we have done crimes against humanity...
They have.
well I suggest you take yourself to court.
A Chilean group that lost family during the Pinochet regime tried to do exactly that. They brought a complaint against Henry Kissinger in the Hague. Of course, the US does not recognise the ICC or any external legal authortiy, so they got exactly nowhere. American govt. officials are above the law you see.
So what ever actions our government makes, its citizens too may also face the consequences.
Your government does not even face the consequences of it's actions, so how on earth can we expect the populace to do so?
It's always someone else's fault isn't it. It's not that you armed a group of bored unemployed Saudi men with Stingers and M16's then left them to rot once they won the cold war for you, no. That would mean that YOU are responsible. No, it's that damn extremist barbarian religion Islam and it's crazy medieval followers, the Jihadists. It's their fault! Now let's nuke them back to the medieval age they enjoy so much.
Again, it's all about democratic accountability in times of warfare.
There is no accountability in times of warfare, and often there is very little democracy.
Should Iran launch a nuclear weapon against Israel, then Israel's government has the sovereign right to counter the attack regardless of the bloodshed it ensues.
Why would Iran launch an attack against it's ally?
At this point, you can only have peace through victory regardless of the winner.
So your agrument is this. Because peace inevitably follows war, then the way to bring peace to Iraq is to start a war there. And in the peace that follows, you will create a democratic government in your own image, sponsored by your own corporations, and the sun will be shining and the people will be happy?
And then you woke up and your mummy was making you breakfast and the world wasn't really made of chocolate?
It's an action to resolve irreconcilable differences when all diplomatic options have failed.
So what was the iireconcilable difference that the Bush junta had with the Hussein junta?
Once a country has elected their representatives, that country as a whole can be held accountable for the actions taken place by that government be it good OR bad.
... it does.
Really? So does that mean that the average American can be held accountable for the 3000 people dissappeared by the Pinochet regime? I think you would find very few people, let alone Americans that would agree with that sentiment.
For example, lets say saddam did have nuclear weapons (he doesn't, but I wouldn't put the goal past him had he remained in power)
Let's say the United States of America, a known aggressor, had nuclear weapons. Oh wait
and used them against the Israel.
In attack or defense? Israel had nuclear weapons before the Iraqi nuclear program even started.
At that point, would it be fair for Israel to retaliate against a country that was oppressed by a dictator that did not reflect the majority of its people?
War is not fair. War is many things, but it certainly not fair. War is politics by other means. Countries (and people) are always trying to impose their will on others. When they succeed, we usually refer to them as "the winner".
I would say no.
Your opinion on what is fair is largely irrelevant as to what course of action Israel would take.
However, let's say saddam was elected in a fair and democratic way. Then at that point, it's fair game in order for Israel to preserve its nation and take out its aggressor.
A country with the means to take out an aggressor will always do so, regardless of whether it is fair game or not.
I'm not exactly sure what your point is here. You are saying that if Iraq has a democratically elected government, and it attacks one of it's neighbours (for example, Israel), then it's OK for it's neighbour to retaliate and massacre large numbers of Iraqi's. And somehow this will "restore order"?
I know that Americans tend to think of War as "order", because once you flatten a city with a medium yield nuke, there is none of that chaotic "activity" going on, like buying, selling, eating breakfast and so forth, but there are other parts of the world that tend to think of "order" in human affairs as a time of peace and prosperity.
So apart from giving Israel the green light to nuke Falluja, how does democracy promote "order" again?
Or, deal with the threat by promoting democrocy in order to restore order to that region.
Explain to me how promoting democrocy(sic) will restore order in that region?
There have been three democracies meddling in that region for the past 80 years, and only one of them has done anything to promote order. Can you guess which one it was?
(Hint: It wasn't the fucking stupid Americans.)
I'll take a wait and see attitude. The US has been down this sort of road before, and managed to some degree to come to its senses.
That's an interesting comment, but I believe that this time there may have been a qualitative change, and the awakening process will become a lot different.
It is probably tempting to think of the "War On Terrorism" as a Macarthy reprise, but I think it is more fundamental than that. With each passing day, the current situation in the US looks more and more like an internal power struggle. Unfortunately for the Iraqi's, they seem to be caught in a proxy civil war, in which the declining powers of the smokestack era mount one last bid to wrest power away from the new technocrats.
If the US continues to pursue its current domestic and international strategies, then I think the end result will be the eroding of its power, and since nature abhors a vacuum, other powers will accumulate what the US loses.
I think US power will actually change it's very nature. Up until now, US power has been based on it's strength as a nation state. In the future though, US power will be concentrated into the major metropolitan areas like NY, SoCal, and it will be entirely economic.
This will naturally create an enourmous economic underclass of those whose incomes formally depended on non-technical industries such as farming, mining and making bombs (surprisingly, the very same people who voted a deserting drunk into the nation's highest office). These people are not going to go quietly into the night like they did during the dust bowl era. No, they have been driving their lincolns, eating their super-size burgers and watching their cable-tv for too long to accept that they are now part of the third world.
And so, unfortunately, there is going to have to be some controls put on these people. They are not going to be allowed to interfere with the economic engine. Thus, no more automatic weapons, or cheap gas, or beating up the white-collar workers, and explosives are going to be right out.
But for the productive people of the new economic engine, life in the US will be much like it was in Singapore for 50 years. Prosperous, clean, efficient and sterile.